On Friday 03 January 2003 05:42 am, Jimmy Wales wrote:
I am reviewing the controversial [[New Imperialism]]
article.
One side note is that Tarquin changed 9,000,000 square miles to
23,000,000 square kilometers. This move was apparently
uncontroversial.
With good reason. Kilometers are a worldwide standard, miles are a measurement
that is now largely unique to the United States.
Is that right? As an American, I frankly confess that
the metric
system is a curiosity to me. 9,000,000 square miles, I can grasp,
because I know how long a mile is intuitively. The kilometer, on the
other hand, is non-intuitive, just an arbitrary length from a
textbook.
As an American, I'd much rather have everything in metric, with no American
measurements in sight, increasing my incentive to get used to the metric
system, and allowing for easier communication with the /majority/ of the
world. Note also that the scientific community uses metric measurements.
Shouldn't we give both, then?
Why? If the reader really needs non-metric measurements, they can consult
[[conversion of units]] (which, actually, may need a bit of expanding for
ease of use as a conversion table... I might look into that in a bit). That
said,
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3AManual_of_Style currently
reads, in part, "For now, if using American or Imperial, give metric as a
courtesy. If using metric, remember that many readers will not know what you
mean and will be aided by the equivalent.", so yes, provide both, I'm afraid.
Personally, I'd rather have it say, "Use metrics. Use only metrics. Any use of
American or Imperial units is punishable by death.", but I doubt I could
convince Wikipedians at large of the merits of it :).